Does God Know From All Eternity Who Will Die Having Rejected Sound Doctrine?

[selahsays]

This passage has always been used, inappropriately and out of context, to prove Calvinism. Let's take a look once again.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

What was chosen before the foundation of the world were the spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. In Christ is the key. The entire chapter are the things found in him, in Christ, in the beloved. The word, "according" takes us back to verse 3 to the context. However, it does not say that he chose us to be in him, as Calvinist somehow think it states.

First of all, I’m a Christian, not a Calvinist. Secondly, spiritual blessings aren’t chosen; it’s “us.” It’s people who are chosen.

 

[oyster67]

No. He does not know from all eternity the individuals who will die having rejected all or some sound doctrine. Nowhere in scripture is this idea claimed.

God knows all things from beginning to end. The Book of Revelation makes this very clear. God dwells outside time and is omniscient.

 

[John146]

I'm surprised. Usually you are a stickler for the actual text, and here you are rejecting the text in favour of a preconceived idea. The text states clearly, "he hath chosen us", not "he hath chosen them". You can't simply ignore the object of the choosing because you don't agree with someone's conclusion on the subject as a whole. You're well off the mark here.

Us are in Christ. Don’t leave out the important word, ”according.” That takes the context back to what was previously said. Calvinists like to add to scripture stating, he chose us to be in him. That’s not Bible.

 

[John146]

First of all, I’m a Christian, not a Calvinist. Secondly, spiritual blessings aren’t chosen; it’s “us.” It’s people who are chosen.

Us, is not the context. The word”according” takes the context back to what was previously stated.

 

[PaulThomson]

We disagree.

This foreknowledge of God is never used in connection with events. It always refers to persons. It is individual people that God is said to foreknow, not the actions of those people. Consider Jeremiah and Paul as (just) two examples. Before the foundation of the world, God knew both of these men. He had foreknowledge of each of them and knew they could be trusted. For this reason He elected them for a special purpose.

Jeremiah 1:5 (KJV)—Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
___
Acts 9:15-16 (KJV)—But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

That translation of the Hebrew is a bit sloppy IMHO. The verb translated In the KJV of Jer. 1:5 as "I formed thee" is actually in a qal imperfect form, as is the Hebrew verb "thou camest forth". conveying uncompleted actions or states, and should be expressed as "Before I was forming you" and "before you were coming forth". There is no "and before "I ordained you".

I would read it as: Before I was forming you ('ATsURK, Qal imperfect) in the belly I had known you (YDa'TiYK, Qal perfect); before you were coming forth (TeTse') out of the womb, I sanctified you (HiQDaShTiYK, Hipj]hil perfect)). I have ordained yoiu (NiTaTiYK: Qal perfect) a prophet to the nations.

The baby does not begin being formed in the womb until the fertilised ovum lodges in the womb. The fertilised ovum contains a complete set of chromosomes that are the blueprint for the full-grown baby. God can read the DNA and conceptualise what the person will look like. IN this manner God is saying "Before I was building you body in the womb based on the zygote's genetic code provided by your parents, I knew what you would look like in your lifetime, based on my reading of your chromosomes. Before you were being birthed I set you apart for a special ministry as an adult. And now it is time to reveal to you what that calling is. I have made/appointed you for these coming days, a prophet to the nations.

I do not see any evidence here that God knew Jeremiah from the foundation of the world.

Acts 9:15-16 can be reasonably interpreted in a similar way, but to be an apostle to the nations/gentile

God knows all things from beginning to end. The Book of Revelation makes this very clear. God dwells outside time and is omniscient.

Please show clearly from Revelation.

 

[Dino246]

Us are in Christ. Don’t leave out the important word, ”according.” That takes the context back to what was previously said. Calvinists like to add to scripture stating, he chose us to be in him. That’s not Bible.

The text is clear: He chose us. ‘’According’ does bring the context into perspective but doesn’t remove ‘us’ as the object.

When did you stop reading the plain text?

 

[PaulThomson]

So how does this relate to God changing His mind concerning Ninevah? Does God not remain faithful to His decree to destroy them? Is it is independent of Nineveh's response? Or does He offer them any room if the choice is to either repent or perish?

How about you give some indication of your objections to my points regarding the context in Malachi and "I the LORD change not" before you jump to some other verse? Do you understand how "I the LORD change not" is referring to His changing away from His covenants,? and how Malachi is not a theological treatise on God's absolute immutability?

 

[PaulThomson]

The text is clear: He chose us. ‘’According’ does bring the context into perspective but doesn’t remove ‘us’ as the object.

When did you stop reading the plain text?

The order of words in Koine Greek provides for some ambiguity in these verses. The words and phrases can be grouped in different ways to mean at least three different things. The idea that God chose us before the foundation of the world is one of those three possibilities. But the idea of us individually is not obvious from the text or the cultural worldview of the first century which was communal and tribal rather than individualistic.
Had Paul intended to say we were individually chosen before the foundation of the world, he could have included the word "ekastos" somewhere to say "each one of us". But he did not. So the "us" is unlikely to be alluding to each Christian being chosen individually from before the foundation of the world. It is more likely saying that He-chose us-in-Him (i.e. the church) [When did he chose the church?] before-the-foundation-of-the-world, {Why did He choose the church?] the church to-be-holy-and-blameless-before-Him in-love (i.e. a community, a bride without spot or wrinkle].

There is no irrefutable claim in this text that individuals were chosen before the foundation of the world.

 

[John146]

The text is clear: He chose us. ‘’According’ does bring the context into perspective but doesn’t remove ‘us’ as the object.

When did you stop reading the plain text?

According, makes the context the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. That's what was chosen to give to us in him before the foundation of the world. I would encourage you not to add to the text and make it say, he chose us to be in him. That's not there as the Roman Catholic John Calvin thought it said.

 

[John146]

The order of words in Koine Greek provides for some ambiguity in these verses. The words and phrases can be grouped in different ways to mean at least three different things. The idea that God chose us before the foundation of the world is one of those three possibilities. But the idea of us individually is not obvious from the text or the cultural worldview of the first century which was communal and tribal rather than individualistic.
Had Paul intended to say we were individually chosen before the foundation of the world, he could have included the word "ekastos" somewhere to say "each one of us". But he did not. So the "us" is unlikely to be alluding to each Christian being chosen individually from before the foundation of the world. It is more likely saying that He-chose us-in-Him (i.e. the church) [When did he chose the church?] before-the-foundation-of-the-world, {Why did He choose the church?] the church to-be-holy-and-blameless-before-Him in-love (i.e. a community, a bride without spot or wrinkle].

There is no irrefutable claim in this text that individuals were chosen before the foundation of the world.

When people approach the scriptures with a preconceived theology, they will always read their theology into the text no matter what the text actually says.

 

[notmyown]

I asked - So God can change His actions as long as His character keeps its integrity. Can God change His feelings towards changing people and changing events without His character losing integrity?



So, you reject the claim that God is impassible, that is, He cannot change His feelings/emotions ?

"Impassibility, a corollary to immutability, means God does not experience emotional change in any way, nor does God suffer. To clarify, God does not merely choose to be impassible; he is impassible by nature.".

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/immutability-impassibility-god/#:~:text=Impassibility, a corollary to immutability, means God does not experience,he is impassible by nature.

one aspect of the doctrine of Impassibility is God is never less then all of His attributes. e.g., when He deals with humankind in wrath, He doesn't cease to be merciful, just, holy, or loving.

i'm trying to be careful with my words.

it's awkward to me to speak of God's "feelings", because it tends to cause us to think of fallen human emotions. it's difficult to speak of Almighty God with human language at all since it's woefully inadequate to describe Him. yet, it's all we have, but sometimes it may be better to say nothing.

 

[Dino246]

The order of words in Koine Greek provides for some ambiguity in these verses. The words and phrases can be grouped in different ways to mean at least three different things. The idea that God chose us before the foundation of the world is one of those three possibilities. But the idea of us individually is not obvious from the text or the cultural worldview of the first century which was communal and tribal rather than individualistic.
Had Paul intended to say we were individually chosen before the foundation of the world, he could have included the word "ekastos" somewhere to say "each one of us". But he did not. So the "us" is unlikely to be alluding to each Christian being chosen individually from before the foundation of the world. It is more likely saying that He-chose us-in-Him (i.e. the church) [When did he chose the church?] before-the-foundation-of-the-world, {Why did He choose the church?] the church to-be-holy-and-blameless-before-Him in-love (i.e. a community, a bride without spot or wrinkle].

There is no irrefutable claim in this text that individuals were chosen before the foundation of the world.

Thanks. I’m not arguing between individuals and corporate church.

 

[Dino246]

When people approach the scriptures with a preconceived theology, they will always read their theology into the text no matter what the text actually says.

Which is what you have done here.

 

[Dino246]

According, makes the context the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. That's what was chosen to give to us in him before the foundation of the world. I would encourage you not to add to the text and make it say, he chose us to be in him. That's not there as the Roman Catholic John Calvin thought it said.

This is hilarious. You are the one adding to the text!

 

[notmyown]

This is hilarious. You are the one adding to the text!

Dino, would the following quote be considered ad hominem?

"That's not there as the Roman Catholic John Calvin thought it said."

 

[Mem]

How about you give some indication of your objections to my points regarding the context in Malachi and "I the LORD change not" before you jump to some other verse? Do you understand how "I the LORD change not" is referring to His changing away from His covenants,? and how Malachi is not a theological treatise on God's absolute immutability?

God fulfills His covenants. I thought that was universally understood. Who is suggesting that He "changes away from" them? And I was addressing the meaning as speaking more toward corruptibility than that of immutability, unless these terms are otherwise synonymous.

 

[Dino246]

Dino, would the following quote be considered ad hominem?

"That's not there as the Roman Catholic John Calvin thought it said."

If by claiming that John Calvin were a Roman Catholic, you are entitled to dismiss his statement as invalid, then yes. Normally, an argument is considered to be ‘ad hominem’ if it is about your adversary in the debate rather than about a third party.

 

[PaulThomson]

God fulfills His covenants. I thought that was universally understood. Who is suggesting that He "changes away from" them? And I was addressing the meaning as speaking more toward corruptibility than that of immutability, unless these terms are otherwise synonymous.

Never mind.

 

[posthuman]

What is the Hebrew word translated here as "infinity" ,and what did it mean for the Jews before a platonist-influenced translator chose to represent it by "infinity"?
'aLaM - long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world. It contains the idea of a long time, not of a timeless state.

you don't acknowledge that "forever, evermore, everlasting, perpetual.." are not descriptions of temporary states?

you understand "everlasting" to mean a finite time?

if there is no concept of infinity outside of Greece, why is it written "from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God"?

 

[posthuman]

Me: "
You are not digging deep enough and logically enough. You claim God does not change. If God looking from your supposed timeless eternal state does not change in any way over all of history and seeing all of history from everlasting to everlasting in one timeless now, and he is angry with someone at some point in history, how does he escape from being angry with them from everlasting to everlasting. And if he is pleased with someone else at some point in time, how does He escape from being pleased with them from everlasting to everlasting.

Maybe it is your God who is chained in a cave and bound to His eternal inability to change. Open theism does not have these kinds of logical paradoxes to contend with."



To give s specific example - "Ex. 4:14 "And the anger of the LORD was kindled AGAINST MOSES... "
Was God angry at Moses. posthuman?
So the question is, is God angry at Moses incessantly in your theoretical eternity. According to your theories, God cannot change in your theoretical eternity. Therefore he must be eternally beginninglessly and endlessly angry at Moses, and at the wickedness that is always playing out forever before his all-time-seeing eyes. This must be his eternal attitude to wickedness and sinners, which he was eternally suffering even before there was any wicked people to be angry at, because nothing had yet been created.He cannot stop being angry at Moses without changing, can He..

Do you not agree. If not, why not?

the language says God's anger was "against" Moses - in the same way that it's written the ordinances "which were against us" were nailed to the cross.

just as the Law does not say "thou shalt not be Moses" but condemned sin in us, God's anger is "against" Moses because of sin in Moses, in the case of the passage you cited, his unbelief.

also written, God is angry with the wicked every day - why? because of wickedness. not because they are themselves.

humans have capacity to get angry at people and to despise them in a very general sense. but God's anger is not our anger. He hates sin, but so loved us - while we were sinners - that He laid down His life for us. the view you are giving here has no room for that.